Safe Speed Forums

no, just wanted to make things clear... and in case anyone lurkers think I'm making it up click this to see a happy me halfway up a mountain last year on my 3rd etape du tour.

and this if you're wondering what happens when drivers don't look where they're going.

Nothing. It wasn't the reason. It was just a 'trigger' (or if you prefer a 'last straw'). As I've told you again and again.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Well put Johnsher, let's also remind others, that the 5% includes those who may have been under the influence of drugs or drink, the joyriders, those who were involved in other crime etc, the Police testing speed cameras and new vehicles etc etc.

I think we could be accused of cherry picking by continuing to use the 5% number. Yes, 5% of all accidents are, possibly, contributed to by exceeding the speed limit but 12% of serious accidents are, possibly, contributed to by exceeding the speed limit.

So as to remain 100% accurate I do not think we should only quote the 5% or it can be used against us, even though it a genuine figure.

As everyone who has heard from me before knows, I am completely opposed to camera enforcement so my comments are only to ensure that our side remains 100% open and unimpeachable.

My main opposition to cameras is that they are not ALWAYS accurate and innocent motorists are being booked for offences they did NOT commit and are then scared into submission by the louts at the SCP's who threaten much larger fines if they contest.

I was booked for exceeding the speed limit by approx 10% even though my GPS AND my speedo confirmed I was NOT speeding.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

These are the best figures we have from table 6 of:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 612594.pdf

Crashes with 'exceeding speed limit' as a contributory factor:

Fatal crashes 12%
Serious crashes 7%
Slight injury crashes 4%
All injury crashes 5%

* No other contributory factor implies that a speed limit was exceeded.
* Where inappropriate speed was coded together with 'exceeding speed limit' the inappropriate speed factor was deleted.
* These statistics include extraordinary reckless behaviour, stolen cars, unlicenced drivers, drunks and so on as well as a proportion of 'otherwise responsible' drivers.
* Each factor is coded together with a 'confidence factor' which may be 'very likely' or 'possible'. In Scotland 59% of 'exceeding speed limit' contributory factors were coded as 'very likely' and 41% were coded as 'possible'. DfT has not published this information for the rest of the country.
* These percentages relate to crashes where any vehicle was thought to be 'exceeding the speed limit', irrespective of any responsibility for the crash.

Once this information is accounted for, the proportion of crashes which were actually caused or contributed to by an 'otherwise responsible' motorist exceeding the speed limit must be absolutely tiny. Under 2% would be my best guess.

At the higher severity end of the scale, reckless behaviours will certainly be relatively more commonplace.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Point of order. I would guess that about 30% of our regulars are bikers / cyclists as well as car drivers. Me included.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

I'm mainly a driver for transport purposes but also make a a lot of use of public transport and also potter about on a bike locally (admittedly only in the dry )

A cyclist who choses to ride on a road with a high speed limit would have no right to expect all the traffic to slow right down just to pass them, unless the design of the road made it necessary. It's a bit of an anomally that the NSL applies both on dual carriageways, where TT cyclists ride deliberately to benefit from the wind generated by 60mph lorries; and on narrow, twisting little country roads where cyclists go for a bit of peace and quiet.
But cyclists do have a right to expect traffic to be going at no more than 30 if that's the legal limit.

It's a combination of factors. But an accident caused by something else can be survivable at low speeds and fatal at high ones. For instance, if inattention causes you to run someone down, they have a better chance at 30 than 50.

But, part of the argument is that inattention is less likely (psychologically) at 50 than at 30 on the same road, assuming that at 50 the driver isn't stressed beyond capacity.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

That's just a theory. Real world figures prove that it's not a realistic view of normal (let alone typical) crash development: PR372: Road safety culture shock stage two. Not enough dead children

Road safety isn't physics - it's psychology.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I think that's a risky argument, Sixy, and it isn't really one that I would make. I'm sure that there are cases where higher attention exists at higher speeds, but this is likely to be a feature of circumstances where speed is severely and artificially constrained. See http://www.safespeed.org.uk/arousal.html

The better argument is the central 'Safe Speed' one, that appropriate speed is inherently safe and that the avoidance of inappropriate speed is a driver quality issue.

I'd also arrgue that appropriate speed contribute precisely zero to system risk on the basis that any speed that does contribute to system risk should not be regarded as appropriate.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Paul. I was just trying to make the point (in simple terms) that it isn't a straight forward set of independant variables. Oversimplified perhaps.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

If only all the cyclists I happen across would obey the 1st rule of the road!

No problem at all - but with people coming here, apparently with the intention of 'finding fault' (or worse) - it's good to present bomb proof arguments.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I though that was interesting enough to spawn a brainstorming topic: [What is the] First rule of the road?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

It might not be you who isn't paying attention. But nevertheless, it would be you who had caused the fatality. The 30mph rule is founded on the probability that a pedestrian will step out in front of a car. The accident happens because the pedestrian was being careless, the pedestrian dies because the car was going too fast. Driving does make you responsible for the safety of others.
Road safety is the core subject on this forum, but speed has other consequences. In reality the number of people killed in road accidents is less tthan the number of people who die in hospital because they were given the wrong treatment or picked up a disease that they didn't have when they went in; but in the public perception roads are more dangerous than hospitals. Fast traffic has an aura of unpleasantness and menace about it that degrades the social environment. This is noticed least by those who are creating the problem, which is why you don't see speed as being a problem.

Which is?

Personally, I'd have all adult cyclists obey all the rules. I know that some cyclists have the same attitude to traffic lights as you have to speed cameras, and use remarkably similar arguments to justify RLJing. I do not accept their arguments, either.

Ditto. In fact SS has a cycling sub-forum. Now, let me see, does C+ have a motoring forum? Or a "Shielded Little House Extension" forum for that matter? No?

What on earth makes you think that? (Serious question!)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety